I asked Verbum about the errata, and they apparently have no plans to update the Verbum version of the NRSVue. I wonder if the Verbum NRSVue-CE will have the latest updates.
I sent an email out this morning to both the USCCB and Friendship Press asking if there are any changes to the text of the Catholic Edition, and if so, can I get a list of all changes. I will let you all know when/if I hear back.
Long-time reader, first time commenter. My appreciation to Marc, Timothy, and everyone who posts or comments on this blog.
FYI, the USCCB has updated their website to list the “New Revised Standard Version, Updated Edition, Catholic Edition, Friendship Press” as an Approved Translation of the Bible.
My understanding is that imprimaturs for biblical translations are reserved to the bishops conference ever since the 1983 Code of Canon Law. Prior to that, an individual bishop could grant an imprimatur.
Can. 825 §1: “Books of the sacred scriptures cannot be published unless the Apostolic See or the conference of bishops has approved them. For the publication of their translations into the vernacular, it is also required that they be approved by the same authority and provided with necessary and sufficient annotations.”
The USCCB Subcommittee on Translation of Scripture Text has been reviewing the NRSVue for quite a while now (at least a year)
Every Catholic Bible I own that has an imprimatur has the name of only one bishop attached, including the New Jerusalem and Revised New Jerusalem, the 1989 NRSV, the New Catholic Bible, the Catholic Edition of the ESV, the Community and New Community Bibles, the Baronius Press edition of the Knox Bible, the Catholic Edition of the NLT, and the New Catholic Bible.
How do they decide which bishop issues the imprimatur? Maybe the bishop of the city where it is first printed?
I’ve gotten the impression that the bishop whose name is listed is either the director of the bishops’ subcommittee which deals with Bible translations or the president of the bishops’ conference. I just checked a few of the Bibles I have on the shelf. Here’s a selection:
New Catholic Bible:
Imprimatur by the Chairman of the Episcopal Commission on the Biblical Apostolate of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines (CBCP). There is a note under the imprimatur that cites Canon 825 §1 and specifies that the CBCP approves the translation for publication.
Revised New Jerusalem Bible:
Imprimatur by the Chairman of the Department for Christian Life and Worship of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales (CBCEW)
New Revised Standard Version:
Imprimatur by the President of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops in the US.
New Living Translation – Catholic Edition:
Imprimatur by the President of the Conference of Catholic Bishops of India
This just in: there will be no changes to the text of the NRSVue-CE, Friendhip Press responded to my inquiry this morning and confirmed it:
“There are no differences in the text for the Catholic Edition – it is the same as the base text for all books shared by Catholics and Protestants. The NRSVue errata is publicly available at https://nrsvue.scribenet.com/errata. The errata lists all corrections to the text that have been made since its initial publication. These apply to the base text of the NRSVue as well as derivative editions.”
Despite the dashed hopes that certain verses would be changed, what we are getting by and large is an improvement to the NRSV. I personally would find it a welcomed change if the Word on Fire Bible makes the switch, or even better if they went with the NCB or the soon to be released NABRE update. I sent Word on Fire and email yesterday asking what translation they will be using moving forward. I will keep you posted.
Over the last month, I’ve been praying in the mornings with three base translations: The RNJB, the REB, and the RSV-CE… and as part of that, I’ve been cross-referencing each day’s readings in the NRSVue online to get a feel. (Overall, I’ve been pleased with it, fyi.)
I literally clicked on this site today saying to myself, “Wouldn’t it be funny if today they announced the imprimatur?”
I would REALLY like to get a Catholic Study Bible using the NRSVue to accompany my (approved 1965) Oxford Annotated, the RNJB Study edition, and the Oxford Study Bible (REB). It will be such a disappointment if the NRSVue ends up as just another floating text of scripture out there like the NLT-CE, the ESV-CE, the NCB, etc. In other words, a lovely translation but with no reference edition to support the reader.
1) I’m quite surprised the USCCB opted to approve this when they did. Frankly, I expected them to drag out the process until after they launched the new NABRE update
2) I’m a little disappointed in the name. I would have preferred something a little more economical: NRSV Catholic Updated Edition (NRSVcue).
3) I wonder if the Catholic edition will get its own 2025 copyright date, or just stick with the 2021 date for the whole translation. Curiously, since the last time I checked, Friendship Press expanded the single 2021 copyright on their permissions page (https://www.friendshippress.org/pages/nrsvue-quick-faq) to three variants. Odd that a Catholic Edition isn’t one of them (yet):
Because it was my first real “study” translation, the RSV / NRSV has long set the baseline “tone” of the Bible for me.
When I became Catholic, I took an interest in different Catholic translations. After 20 years, though still Catholic, I’ve been consciously staying in connection with the UMC and Episcopal churches in which I originated: attending once a month to pray in familiar ways, but obviously not participating sacramentally. For that reason, I wanted to read from translations that are recognized fully by all three traditions.
The UMC has no official translation for worship and encourages multiple translations, but frequently published material using either the NRSVue or the CEB.
The Episcopal Church does have translations officially authorized for use in worship (https://www.episcopalchurch.org/what-we-believe/bible/), many of which are also approved by the Catholic Church. So, using their list as my filter, I looked for translations approved by the Episcopal Church that are also suitable for Catholic use (and, if they’re part of a lineage, in their latest edition). For instance:
-they approved the original New American Bible and Good News Bible, but none of the later translations (like the NABRE or the Catholic approved GNT second edition)
-Everything in the KJV/RSV lineage is approved, but it wasn’t until today that the NRSVue was approved for Catholic use
-The original Jerusalem and New Jerusalem Bibles have long been options, but at last year’s General Convention they approved the RNJB too
-Like the UMC they endorse the CEB, but it’s unacceptable as a Catholic translation
-And often unknown to Catholics, the Revised English Bible was also approved not just by Anglicans, but also by Methodist and Catholic churches in the British isles
So this gives me a range of three translation families whose latest edition is available for prayer and study in all three traditions:
-One from within the Catholic Church (RNJB)
-A Protestant translation approved for use by Catholics (NRSVue which I compare to the RSV)
-An ecumenical translation prepared by Protestants and Catholics together (REB)
My high-level impressions:
1) There’s no one clear go-to translation – Different texts stand out on different reading: sometimes the classic prose of the RSV rises to the surface, sometimes the REB or RNJB is especially artful instead
2) The NRSVue has yet to hit me with something truly artful, but always impresses me with its plain diction: I’m usually surprised how close it stays to the RSV, while still sounding like more natural contemporary speech. It turns a lot of and’s into so’s, shalls into wills, sepulchres into graves, and the like. But the sentence structure is still recognizably the RSV underneath. I like it better than the prior NRSV.
3) When one diverges from the others, it often seems to be the REB – Today it rendered Nehemiah 2:8 “for the temple which is the object of my journey” where the RSV, NRSVue, and RNJB all had some variant of “for the wall of the city and for the house that I shall occupy.”
4) The one feature that I wish all would adopt is the RNJB’s attention to prosody and poetic structure. Say what you want about the paucity of textual notes compared to the NJB, the RNJB works so much harder than the other three to set apart poetic forms wherever they appear, whether that’s whole psalms, songs or canticles in the midst of prose narrative, or doxologies in the midst of Paul’s letters. It seems like every page has a poem on it in verse form, which breaks up the text visually and conveys a lot of information visually through formatting alone that the others resort to footnotes to convey. That, combined with solid textual cross-references in the margins (instead of at the bottom of the page), is probably my favorite feature of any of these translations.
I read the Common English Bible and I found it abhorrent, banal prose, often made absurdly PC For example, instead of “Son of Man” (Christ’s favorite title for himself), it translates “Human One”, which is not only bad English, but it totally misses the point of the title, and turns it from a profound theological statement into an inane tautology.
But I agree with you about the Tyndale/KJV translation tradition being the baseline.
I will always prefer translations in that family, from Tyndale’s original text, to Coverdale, Geneva, the Great Bible, Bishop’s Bible, KJV, the Revised Version, the American Standard Version, Revised Standard, New American Standard, New Revised Standard, English Standard, over any other.
Indeed, ever since Tyndale, it has not really been possible to translate the Bible into English from scratch; you either follow Tyndale, or you don’t, and every change to Tyndale is essentially a response or rebuttal to Tyndale.
I’m not a fan of the CEB either for much the same reason.
It’s the Revised English Bible (REB) that I read. It updates the New English Bible, neither of which have anything to do with the CEB.
Chris, thanks for sharing. What an awsome coincidence that you checked the website right after wondering if the imprimatur was announced. In case you didn’t know, all NCB Bibles are reference editions. The footnotes and references come standard, similar to the NABRE, so they are basically study Bibles without the title.
I heard back from Word on Fire today and they will continue with the NRSV-CE for the remainder of the volumes. When asked what translation they will use for future printings after that, I was told they are not sure yet. I think I will hold off getting the Old Testament volumes until future printings in case they switch translations.
Yep, not everyone likes it, and it’s fair game to criticize its translation choices. But that article takes things a step too far into outright falsehood with the following statement in large font at the top of the page: “The NRSVue now becomes the first major modern English committee translation of the Bible to eliminate any reference to homosexual practice.”
That is simply not true. Romans 1:26-27 clearly refers to homosexual practice in the NRSVue and makes no attempt to obfuscate the issue. The same is true of Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13. Furthermore, the NRSVue is not new in adopting a vague or broad wording for 1 Cor 6:9. The 1971 RSV translates the two underlying Greek words with the term “sexual perverts” rather than specifying homosexuality or clarifying the precise meaning of the two underlying Greek words.
Marc, as Peter rightly notes, it is clear from the context of my lengthy Jan. 5, 2022 post that I was referring specifically to 1 Cor 6:9 (and, by inference, to 1 Tim 1:10 where arsenokoitai again appears), not to Rom 1:26-27 and Lev 18:22 and 20:13, which owing to the number of words describing homosexual practice could not be obscured even by the translators of the updated edition.
As for the RSV translation, I immediately added the qualification about the RSV and REB translations: //(unless one counts the earlier RSV’s “sexual perverts,” picked up by the REB, as a paraphrase for both malakoi and arsenokoitai).//
I would argue that “sexual perverts” at the time that the RSV committee provided this translation, even granted its deficiency, would have been widely taken as a reference to those who engage in homosexual practice. By the time the NRSV first came out, that sense was no longer as clear as it once was, which is why the NRSV translators changed the translation to “sodomites” (still not the best translation but at least signaling clearly a reference to those who engage in homosexual practice).
The word arsen-o-koi-tai literally means “men [-tai] lying [koi-] with a male [arsen].” I gave numerous reasons in the post for why it should be translated this way, from both historical context and literary context. In addition, this translation is confirmed by the early rendering of the Greek word in the Old Latin and Latin Vulgate as masculorum concubitores (“men lying with males”). Similar renderings are given in the Syriac and Coptic versions.
In his articles, the author stated that the other passages condemning homosexual acts remained correctly translated. His point was that the two passages in question could mark the beginning of a process of eliminating the others. That’s how I understood him from the start.
I agee with Marc. It is false and defamatory to say the NRSVue has “gay-washed” the Bible and that it eliminated any reference to homosexual practice. I would also add in Jude 7 to the three verses Marc mentioned. I wonder if he would accuse the Douay Rheims of “gay-washing” the Bible for their choice of “the effeminate” and “liers with mankind” for 1 Cor 6:10.
I also think it was wrong to re-state his claim that the NRSVue translators don’t even know how they came up with their translation for 1 Cor 6 and 1 Tim 1. While he does mention the interview with the translation committee that Marc post a couple of months ago, and says the committee “changed its tune”, he doesn’t mention that they freely discuss who suggested the changes and that the whole committee agreed with the changes. That bit is necessary to clarify and correct his previous misleading statements. There is a longer article from Catholic Culture that is linked at the bottom of the article Scott posted that has this additional material.
The Catholic Culture column links to Robert A.J. Gagnon’s original post in which Gagnon stated that his claim that “The NRSVue now becomes the first major modern English committee translation of the Bible to eliminate any reference to homosexual practice” applied only to the committee responsible for translating arsenokoitai and not to other parts of the NRSVue. A clarification has been added to the column.
The problem with what Mr. Gagnon said and the problem with the Catholic Culture article reposting it, even with clarification, is it’s not true. The NRSVue general editors assigned individual scholars to particular books to review and make suggestions for changes. Susan Hylen was the reviewer for 1 & 2 Timothy, and she was the one that suggested the change to “men who engage in illicit sex”. There was one decision making committee with John Kutsko, the director of the NRSV update, and the general editors. They discussed Susan Hylen’s suggestion and ultimately agreed on the suggested changes. There is no mysterious sub-committee responsible for the change. The same committee that agreed to what the NRSVue says in Romans 1:26-27, Leviticus 18:22, Leviticus 20:13, and Jude 7, is the one that agreed to what it says in 1 Cor 6:9-10 and 1 Timothy 1:10.
Cory, I am not sure what your point is in talking about how the decision to translate arsenokoitai as “men who engage in illicit sex” was made and claiming that what I said was “not true.” I never claimed that “the NRSVue translators don’t even know how they came up with their translation for 1 Cor 6 and 1 Tim 1.”
I am well aware that suggestions for translation changes made at lower levels have to be confirmed by the director and general editors. I was not aware that Susan Hylen suggested the change, but otherwise you have said nothing new to about the decision process. Everyone who had a hand in that change made the change not on the basis of the data but on the basis of LGBTQ dogma, for the evidence of the meaning “men lying with a male” is overwhelming (as I have shown).
Also: I did not say that “the NRSVue has ‘gay-washed’ the Bible and … eliminated any reference to homosexual practice.” I explicitly said in the title of my post that “the NRSV Updated Edition ‘Gaywashes’ 1 Corinthians 6:9.” That is not “defamatory” but accurate. You also say: //I wonder if he would accuse the Douay Rheims of “gay-washing” the Bible for their choice of “the effeminate” and “liers with mankind” for 1 Cor 6:10.// No, “liers with mankind” meant in its day men having sexual intercourse with males. It is a misleading translation to our modern ears but I can’t fault the Douay Rheims translation for speaking in their contemporary parlance.
As I noted to Marc, the statement in my post that “the NRSVue now becomes the first major modern English committee translation of the Bible to eliminate any reference to homosexual practice” in context clearly referred not to the whole Bible but specifically to 1 Cor 6:9. I was not claiming that there were no other negative statements about homosexual practice left in the NRSVue, which would be a manifestly untenable claim. I have now revised my post to add “in 1 Cor 6:9,” to avoid any future misunderstanding (or misrepresentation) of my statement.
Robert, my comment here is a reply to PJW’s comment just above mine. What I was saying is not true was both the statement “The NRSVue now becomes the first major modern English committee translation of the Bible to eliminate any reference to homosexual practice” and PJW’s clarification that the quote “applied only to the committee responsible for translating arsenokoitai and not to other parts of the NRSVue.” You have now amended your statement to include “…in 1 Cor 6:9”, but what I was calling “not true” was your statement before you amended it.
Even though it sounds like it was not your intent, what we have now is 3 Catholic articles (the Catholic Culture article “Bishops Approve “Gay-Washed” Bible”, the Catholic Answers article by the same author, “New Frontiers in Politically Correct Bible Translation!”, and the complicitclergy.com article “USCCB Approves “Gay-Washed” Bible) that use your quote in isolation and out of context to spread mis-information about the NRSVue and to bash the USCCB. They have also used your “gaywashed” line to refer to the translation as a whole. This comes straight out of Peter’s Catholic Answers article:
“According to Robert A.J. Gagnon, a Presbyterian scholar whose expertise on the Bible is respected across ecclesial divisions, the NRSVue “gaywashes” the Bible.”
Peter goes on to make the same claim later in the article when he says “Today, LGBT is the cause célèbre. Lo and behold, the National Council of Churches produces a gaywashed NRSVue.” His new article in Catholic Culture is titled “Bishops Approve “Gay-Washed” Bible”. The Complicit Clergy article takes up a similar title and has as its first statement “The NRSVue now becomes the first major modern English committee translation of the Bible to eliminate any reference to homosexual practice.”
These are the sorts of things that I think are defamatory. It is a sad situation that I am hoping can find some rectification.
For ease of reference for anyone reading the comments, here is a longer quote from Gagnon’s original Facebook post (
“The NRSVue now becomes the first major modern English committee translation of the Bible to eliminate any reference to homosexual practice (unless one counts the earlier RSV’s “sexual perverts,” picked up by the REB, as a paraphrase for both malakoi and arsenokoitai).
[Note that my criticisms apply only to those scholars who had a hand in the translation of 1 Cor 6:9; many other scholars, good scholars, were involved in the project of updating the NRSV, to whom my criticisms do not apply.]”
I would agree with PJW that the bracketed clarification in Gagnon’s original post limits his comments to 1 Cor 6:9, rather than the NRSVue translation as a whole. Unfortunately, Gagnon phrased the main statement with broad language that sounds like it applies to the NRSVue as a whole, and the Catholic Culture article quoted the main statement without any of the caveats.
Even considering the limited context of 1 Cor 6:9, I think Gagnon’s parenthetical acknowledgement that both the RSV and the REB use the term “sexual perverts” to translate the two underlying Greek words is already proof that the NRSVue is simply not “the first major modern English committee translation of the Bible to eliminate any reference to homosexual practice.”
Marc, thank you for noting the context of my remark. I have now added “in 1 Cor 6:9” to that sentence in the post so as to avoid future misrepresentation or misunderstanding of my remark.
You also rightly note that I added the qualification, “unless one counts the earlier RSV’s ‘sexual perverts,’ picked up by the REB.” I would argue that “sexual perverts” at the time that the RSV committee provided this translation, even granted its deficiency, would have been widely taken as a reference to those who engage in homosexual practice. By the time the NRSV first came out, that sense was no longer as clear as it once was, which is why the NRSV translators changed the translation to “sodomites” (still not the best translation but at least signaling clearly a reference to those who engage in homosexual practice).
Thank you for stopping by the blog, Robert! I appreciate you being here.
I take your point about the connotation of “sexual perverts” in the mid 20th century, but to me the crucial point is that both the RSV and the REB were revisions of prior translations which included explicit mention of homosexual practice in their translations of 1 Cor 6:9.
The 1946 RSV New Testament used the single word “homosexuals” to translate the two words “malakoi” and “arsenokoitai”
This was revised in the second edition of the RSV New Testament (published in 1971) to “sexual perverts” — a broader term.
The 1961 New English Bible (NEB) New Testament used the phrase “guilty of…homosexual perversion” to translate “malakoi” and “arsenokoitai”
The 1989 Revised English Bible revised the NEB’s language to “sexual perverts”
Both of these examples seem similar to the translation choice in the NRSVue. They move from a specific reference to homosexual practice to a less specific term. As such, I don’t see why the RSV and the REB should not count as examples of a similar pattern, and I think it is incorrect to say that the NRSVue is the first example of this.
My main frustration here is with vilification of the NRSVue as a whole. I think it’s perfectly fair game to criticize its translation choice in 1 Cor 6:9 and offer supporting evidence, as your Facebook post does. Unfortunately, the way your original statement was worded was picked up by other outlets and made it sound like the NRSVue as a whole was a singularly sinister translation which has gone farther than any other modern translation to expunge prohibitions of homosexual practice from all of Scripture.
I think this video from “Ward on Words” is about as evenhanded a criticism of the NRSVue’s translation of arsenokoitai as one is likely to find. Like Dr. Gagnon (and subsequent articles based on Gagnon), Ward calls the NRSVue “the first major English Bible to suddenly find arsenkoitai impossible to translate.” He explains why. He says that the rest of the NRSVue does not do that, only those two verses. But he does not think it was an accident.
About that. Progressives are very good at incrementalism. The RSV/NRSV seems to get an update about every thirty years. Given the trajectory, it would not be a surprise if they water down more verses on this topic in another thirty years.
It’s striking, too, that very few here are arguing that the NRSVue translated that word correctly and that the USCCB was right to approve it. The argument is over Gagnon’s wording and the articles that used that wording. The strange premise that the Bible makes distinctions between different kinds of same-sex relationships, now lent credence by a Bible with an imprimatur, goes largely unaddressed.
Thanks for sharing that video from Mark Ward, PJW. I watched parts of it before, but I appreciated watching it again. I sympathize with almost everything he said in the video until he got to the last sentence when he concludes that a bible translation “freak-out” is warranted for the NRSVue, due to its translations of 1 Cor 6:9 and 1 Tim 1:10. I vehemently disagree if a “freak-out” entails false statements, taken out of context, and fomenting outrage against the USCCB and the US bishops.
For what it’s worth (I’m an amateur, so it shouldn’t be worth very much), I find Gagnon and Ward’s arguments persuasive regarding the meaning of “arsenokoitai.” I was not happy with the NRSVue’s original decision to translate it “men who engage in illicit sex” with a footnote that simply said “Meaning of Gk uncertain.” I agree with Ward that this felt like a punt. The revised footnote listed in the NRSVue errata solves that issue for me. It acknowledges that there is scholarly debate over the exact connotation of “arsenokoitai” while offering a more literal translation of its meaning in the footnote (just like the NRSV does in other places).
When you criticize the NRSVue for lending credence to “the strange premise that the Bible makes distinctions between different kinds of same-sex relationships,” I’m a bit puzzled. To me, the text of the NRSVue is quite restrained in lending credence to that view. I agree that some individual scholars hold that view and argue that Paul was only trying to condemn sexual exploitation rather than all same-sex actions (I find that view unconvincing, for what it’s worth). But if the NRSVue translators wanted to favor that view, their word choice does a poor job of it. They would have been much better off to use a specific word like “pederasts” or “men who rape men” in order to limit the meaning, rather than a vague phrase that is open to multiple interpretations. Their choice is certainly influenced by the disagreement among scholars on this point, but when seen from that perspective, it does an admirable job of dealing with the scholarly debate. I wish it was less vague, but the revised footnote is acceptable to me.
Now that I’ve addressed my personal view of the translation, let me take up the question about whether the USCCB was right to grant an imprimatur to the NRSVue, in light of its translation of 1 Cor 6:9 and 1 Tim 1:10. In my opinion, it was entirely right. The imprimatur is not a judgment about whether a translation perfectly expresses the full meaning of the original Greek or Hebrew. If it was, no translation would ever be granted an imprimatur. Rather, it is merely a judgment that there is nothing in the text which is contrary to faith or morals. There is certainly nothing contrary to faith or morals in saying that men who engage in illicit sex will not inherit the kingdom of God. If the question arises, “but what is illicit sex?”, a Catholic reading the NRSVue should consult the Church’s moral teaching and the rest of Paul’s teaching (including Romans 1:26-27). But on its face, the statement as translated is entirely in accord with Catholic teaching.
I’d like to expand a bit on my point above. To reiterate: the NRSVue does not lend undue credence to a moral difference between different types of same-sex relationships. In my view, translations that are overly specific in their rendering of malakoi and arsenokoitai pose a greater potential for that interpretation than vague translations like “men who engage in illicit sex.” Consider the NABRE’s translation of 1 Cor 6:9 and the accompanying footnote:
“Do you not know that the unjust will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers nor boy prostitutes nor sodomites…” (1 Cor 6:9 NABRE)
The NABRE’s footnote reads as follows: “The Greek word translated as boy prostitutes may refer to catamites, i.e., boys or young men who were kept for purposes of prostitution, a practice not uncommon in the Greco-Roman world. In Greek mythology this was the function of Ganymede, the “cupbearer of the gods,” whose Latin name was Catamitus. The term translated sodomites refers to adult males who indulged in homosexual practices with such boys. See similar condemnations of such practices in Rom 1:26–27; 1 Tm 1:10.”
As such, the NABRE’s translation (“sodomites”) broadly connotes same-sex activity, but the footnote confines the meaning to the context of adult men and boy prostitutes. It further applies this limited cultural context to Paul’s teaching in Romans 1:26-27 and 1 Timothy 1:10. To me, this footnote opens the door far more to the argument that Paul is only condemning exploitative same-sex activity, compared to the NRSVue’s “men who engage in illicit sex.”
What constitutes illicit sex in Paul’s context? The type of same sex activity mentioned in the NABRE footnote was not necessarily illicit in pagan society. But in Paul’s context as a Jew trained in the law, he would have considered all same-sex intercourse between men illicit under the prohibitions in the law (and likely also in his understanding of what we would now call the natural law). Furthermore, the phrase “men who engage in illicit sex” is broader than “sodomites” or especially the explanation given in the NABRE footnote. The NRSVue would encompass a wider variety of sins than either of those other examples. If the concern is that the NRSVue has limited the scope of sin which can exclude a person from the kingdom of God, I simply do not think it has. In fact, it has broadened the scope compared to the NABRE and compared to the original NRSV.
In case anyone reacts to the above with a condemnation of the NABRE, let me also cite the New Catholic Bible, which has a reputation for being more traditional in its translation and commentary than the NABRE:
“Are you not aware that wrongdoers will never inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! Fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, sodomites…” (1 Cor 6:9 NCB)
The NCB’s footnote to this verse points the reader to the footnote for 1 Tim 1:10. After turning to that note, one can read the following: “Sodomites: adult males who have relations with boy prostitutes. The latter are also known as catamites after the Latin name (Catamitus) of Ganymede, the cupbearer of the gods in Greek mythology. See also Rom 1:26f and 1 Cor 6:9.” This note applies the same limited cultural context to the meaning of the term “sodomites” as the NABRE’s footnote, and it similarly cites Romans 1:26-27 and 1 Cor 6:9 as falling under the same cultural context.
The NRSVue’s translation does not attempt to limit the scope of Paul’s language to a narrower context proposed by scholars (as valid as that context may be for understanding the culture Paul was addressing). It leaves the question open. The “freak-out” over the translation focuses on the narrow fact that the words “illicit sex” no longer have an explicit same-sex connotation, but if the overriding concern is failure to condemn the sins Paul condemned, it seems clear that the NRSVue condemns a wider range of sins than the footnotes in the NABRE and the NCB, which limit the context to the point where many modern same-sex relationships do not seem relevant to what Paul was addressing. I personally think the NRSVue’s language for translating arsenokoitai is too broad, but my point is that I don’t think the NRSVue is singularly pernicious in this respect. If the NABRE and NCB received imprimaturs, there is no reason why the NRSVue should not.
For what it’s worth (not much, methinks), I think the DR is far and away the best translation of that passage, at least as far as the plain meaning of the Greek is concerned (which is ironic, given that it’s a Latin translation).
The word “homosexual” was coined in the 1890s by psychoanalysts who were classifying homosexuality as a mental disorder.
The RSV NT in 1946 was the first Bible translation to use the word. This was the subject of a recent documentary which claims that before 1946, homosexuality was never considered sinful and that the idea was introduced in 1946, obvious nonsense of course.
The Douay Rheims could not possibly have used the word because it did not exist. However, even to our own day, homosexual men have a reputation for being “effeminate”, so “effeminate men” was clearly intended to mean homosexuals.
What does Knox say? Note that the English language has an astonishing number of euphemisms for homosexuality, and at the time conservatives criticized the 1946 RSV NT for unnecessary vulgarity in using the word.
He went with “effeminate” and “sinners against nature” in 1 Cor 6:10. While these terms would encompass homosexual practice, they aren’t exclusive to it. You could have an effeminate man that others might label homosexual, and indeed he may have same sex attraction, but that doesn’t mean he’s engaging in homosexual activity. He may well be single and chaste. Regarding “sinners against nature”, that could include bestiality, and maybe even incest and masturbation.
Pope Leo gives advice to Catholic media: Look at the world the way Christ does
To call itself “Catholic,” a magazine must try to look at the world the way Christ does and give witness to his saving love and power, Pope Leo XIV said…. https://www.americamagazine.org/news/2025/09/25/pope-leo-catholic-media/
Not quite the vibe I’m getting from “Complicit Clergy.”
On the bright side, we now know the Augustine Institute’s CSV translation is still underway, so those who vehemently dislike the NRSVue-CE have another future translation to look forward to, one that certainly won’t follow the NRSVue in those two verses. I hope we can get a full CSV New Testament in the coming years, at least.
It’s a progressive, LGBTQ+ translation. Hence, the acronym soup of “NRSVue-CE”, the unnecessary termination of the faithful NRSV, and the committee’s distortions around its own decisions.
It’s odd to see people defending this translation, when the same people were previously aghast at the anti-Catholicism of its study notes. Denial of obvious truths breeds an everlasting surprise, or as the Russians would say, “polezniye duraki”.
I haven’t seen anyone on this blog approve or celebrate the translation changes in 1 Cor 6:9 and 1 Tim 1:10. There is nothing strange to me about being critical of the SBL Study Bible sidebars, which are unrelated to the NCC, Frindship Press, and the NRSVue translation committee, and at the same time defending the NRSVue translation against untrue attacks that seem at this point to be deliberately false and misleading. It doesn’t help our cause in defending the Church’s teachings on marriage and sexuality when people react so uncharitably. We should have a measured and fair response to NRSVue’s translation choices and the USCCB’s granting of an imprimatur. I can say that and at the same time be unhappy with the translation changes in 1Cor 6:9 and 1 Tim 1:1, and frustrated there weren’t changes in the Catholic Edition. Maybe we should all seek to understand rather than jump to such extreme conclusions
Footnotes and the delusional fantasies and desires of the woke mind virus are not the divinely inspired and inerrant word of God affirmed by the Holy Spirit.
Galatians 1:8
2 Corinthians 6:17
For what it’s worth, an imprimatur is not infallible. The permission from a bishop that a publication may be printed can be withdrawn. I believe the 1991 translation of the NAB psalter was given an imprimatur, but the Vatican insisted it be withdrawn because the inclusive language was so reckless that Messianic prophecy was obscured. Pope St. John Paul II had much to say about this problem.
I’m very hesitant to trust our modern translators. It’s naive to believe they are not affected in their translating by ideological pressures, especially those applied by the more militant perverse types. Fr. John Hardon once stated the obvious, that translators are directly affected in their choices of words by their own personal beliefs. How we get beyond this problem is a mystery. But it certainly helps to have a few older translations on hand to compare verses.
It’s hard to imagine a more infuriating evil than the obscuring of sin in the Word of God.
The Congregation for Divine Worship denied permission to use the 1991 NAB Psalms for liturgical use in 1994.
You might be thinking of the 1995 ICEL translation of the Psalter. It made widespread use of inclusive language (including eliminating most male pronouns for God), and the US bishops revoked their imprimatur for it at the request of Cardinal Ratzinger. Here is an archived article by John Allen Jr. summarizing what happened:
And here is the statement by Bishop Anthony Pilla, president of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops, on the revocation of the imprimatur for the 1995 ICEL Psalter:
With no changes? I had wondered if they would update 1 Cor 6:9 and 1 Tim 1:10.
The footnote is accurately updated in newer printings of the UE.
My copy does not include the new footnote. What does it state?
The updated footnote for 1 Cor 6:9 and 1 Tim 1:10 reads: “Meaning of Gk uncertain, possibly men who have sex with men”
The full list of corrections and errata for the NRSVue is available here: https://nrsvue.scribenet.com/errata
I asked Verbum about the errata, and they apparently have no plans to update the Verbum version of the NRSVue. I wonder if the Verbum NRSVue-CE will have the latest updates.
I sent an email out this morning to both the USCCB and Friendship Press asking if there are any changes to the text of the Catholic Edition, and if so, can I get a list of all changes. I will let you all know when/if I hear back.
Ok, I didn’t have that one on my bingo card
Long-time reader, first time commenter. My appreciation to Marc, Timothy, and everyone who posts or comments on this blog.
FYI, the USCCB has updated their website to list the “New Revised Standard Version, Updated Edition, Catholic Edition, Friendship Press” as an Approved Translation of the Bible.
https://www.usccb.org/offices/new-american-bible/approved-translations-bible
Good find. Thanks for the update
The entire conference? There really only needs to be one bishop. Did they actually review the text or was it just a rubber stamp?
My understanding is that imprimaturs for biblical translations are reserved to the bishops conference ever since the 1983 Code of Canon Law. Prior to that, an individual bishop could grant an imprimatur.
Can. 825 §1: “Books of the sacred scriptures cannot be published unless the Apostolic See or the conference of bishops has approved them. For the publication of their translations into the vernacular, it is also required that they be approved by the same authority and provided with necessary and sufficient annotations.”
The USCCB Subcommittee on Translation of Scripture Text has been reviewing the NRSVue for quite a while now (at least a year)
Every Catholic Bible I own that has an imprimatur has the name of only one bishop attached, including the New Jerusalem and Revised New Jerusalem, the 1989 NRSV, the New Catholic Bible, the Catholic Edition of the ESV, the Community and New Community Bibles, the Baronius Press edition of the Knox Bible, the Catholic Edition of the NLT, and the New Catholic Bible.
How do they decide which bishop issues the imprimatur? Maybe the bishop of the city where it is first printed?
I’ve gotten the impression that the bishop whose name is listed is either the director of the bishops’ subcommittee which deals with Bible translations or the president of the bishops’ conference. I just checked a few of the Bibles I have on the shelf. Here’s a selection:
New Catholic Bible:
Imprimatur by the Chairman of the Episcopal Commission on the Biblical Apostolate of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines (CBCP). There is a note under the imprimatur that cites Canon 825 §1 and specifies that the CBCP approves the translation for publication.
Revised New Jerusalem Bible:
Imprimatur by the Chairman of the Department for Christian Life and Worship of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales (CBCEW)
New Revised Standard Version:
Imprimatur by the President of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops in the US.
New Living Translation – Catholic Edition:
Imprimatur by the President of the Conference of Catholic Bishops of India
Pass.
This just in: there will be no changes to the text of the NRSVue-CE, Friendhip Press responded to my inquiry this morning and confirmed it:
“There are no differences in the text for the Catholic Edition – it is the same as the base text for all books shared by Catholics and Protestants. The NRSVue errata is publicly available at https://nrsvue.scribenet.com/errata. The errata lists all corrections to the text that have been made since its initial publication. These apply to the base text of the NRSVue as well as derivative editions.”
Despite the dashed hopes that certain verses would be changed, what we are getting by and large is an improvement to the NRSV. I personally would find it a welcomed change if the Word on Fire Bible makes the switch, or even better if they went with the NCB or the soon to be released NABRE update. I sent Word on Fire and email yesterday asking what translation they will be using moving forward. I will keep you posted.
Amazing.
Over the last month, I’ve been praying in the mornings with three base translations: The RNJB, the REB, and the RSV-CE… and as part of that, I’ve been cross-referencing each day’s readings in the NRSVue online to get a feel. (Overall, I’ve been pleased with it, fyi.)
I literally clicked on this site today saying to myself, “Wouldn’t it be funny if today they announced the imprimatur?”
I would REALLY like to get a Catholic Study Bible using the NRSVue to accompany my (approved 1965) Oxford Annotated, the RNJB Study edition, and the Oxford Study Bible (REB). It will be such a disappointment if the NRSVue ends up as just another floating text of scripture out there like the NLT-CE, the ESV-CE, the NCB, etc. In other words, a lovely translation but with no reference edition to support the reader.
Really glad to see this come about.
Also-
1) I’m quite surprised the USCCB opted to approve this when they did. Frankly, I expected them to drag out the process until after they launched the new NABRE update
2) I’m a little disappointed in the name. I would have preferred something a little more economical: NRSV Catholic Updated Edition (NRSVcue).
3) I wonder if the Catholic edition will get its own 2025 copyright date, or just stick with the 2021 date for the whole translation. Curiously, since the last time I checked, Friendship Press expanded the single 2021 copyright on their permissions page (https://www.friendshippress.org/pages/nrsvue-quick-faq) to three variants. Odd that a Catholic Edition isn’t one of them (yet):
* [Scripture quotations are taken from] the New Revised Standard Version Updated Edition. Copyright © 2021 National Council of Churches of Christ in the United States of America. Used by permission. All rights reserved worldwide.
* [Scripture quotations are taken from] the New Revised Standard Version Updated Edition, Deuterocanonical/Apocryphal Books of the Old Testament. Copyright © 2021 National Council of Churches of Christ in the United States of America. Used by permission. All rights reserved worldwide.
* [Scripture quotations are from] the NRSVue British Text, derived from the New Revised Standard Version Updated Edition, Copyright © 2021 National Council of Churches of Christ in the United States of America. Used by permission. All rights reserved worldwide.
Since you have been immersed in the REB/RNJB/RSV, how do you feel about all of these translations currently if you don’t mind me asking?
Because it was my first real “study” translation, the RSV / NRSV has long set the baseline “tone” of the Bible for me.
When I became Catholic, I took an interest in different Catholic translations. After 20 years, though still Catholic, I’ve been consciously staying in connection with the UMC and Episcopal churches in which I originated: attending once a month to pray in familiar ways, but obviously not participating sacramentally. For that reason, I wanted to read from translations that are recognized fully by all three traditions.
The UMC has no official translation for worship and encourages multiple translations, but frequently published material using either the NRSVue or the CEB.
The Episcopal Church does have translations officially authorized for use in worship (https://www.episcopalchurch.org/what-we-believe/bible/), many of which are also approved by the Catholic Church. So, using their list as my filter, I looked for translations approved by the Episcopal Church that are also suitable for Catholic use (and, if they’re part of a lineage, in their latest edition). For instance:
-they approved the original New American Bible and Good News Bible, but none of the later translations (like the NABRE or the Catholic approved GNT second edition)
-Everything in the KJV/RSV lineage is approved, but it wasn’t until today that the NRSVue was approved for Catholic use
-The original Jerusalem and New Jerusalem Bibles have long been options, but at last year’s General Convention they approved the RNJB too
-Like the UMC they endorse the CEB, but it’s unacceptable as a Catholic translation
-And often unknown to Catholics, the Revised English Bible was also approved not just by Anglicans, but also by Methodist and Catholic churches in the British isles
So this gives me a range of three translation families whose latest edition is available for prayer and study in all three traditions:
-One from within the Catholic Church (RNJB)
-A Protestant translation approved for use by Catholics (NRSVue which I compare to the RSV)
-An ecumenical translation prepared by Protestants and Catholics together (REB)
My high-level impressions:
1) There’s no one clear go-to translation – Different texts stand out on different reading: sometimes the classic prose of the RSV rises to the surface, sometimes the REB or RNJB is especially artful instead
2) The NRSVue has yet to hit me with something truly artful, but always impresses me with its plain diction: I’m usually surprised how close it stays to the RSV, while still sounding like more natural contemporary speech. It turns a lot of and’s into so’s, shalls into wills, sepulchres into graves, and the like. But the sentence structure is still recognizably the RSV underneath. I like it better than the prior NRSV.
3) When one diverges from the others, it often seems to be the REB – Today it rendered Nehemiah 2:8 “for the temple which is the object of my journey” where the RSV, NRSVue, and RNJB all had some variant of “for the wall of the city and for the house that I shall occupy.”
4) The one feature that I wish all would adopt is the RNJB’s attention to prosody and poetic structure. Say what you want about the paucity of textual notes compared to the NJB, the RNJB works so much harder than the other three to set apart poetic forms wherever they appear, whether that’s whole psalms, songs or canticles in the midst of prose narrative, or doxologies in the midst of Paul’s letters. It seems like every page has a poem on it in verse form, which breaks up the text visually and conveys a lot of information visually through formatting alone that the others resort to footnotes to convey. That, combined with solid textual cross-references in the margins (instead of at the bottom of the page), is probably my favorite feature of any of these translations.
I read the Common English Bible and I found it abhorrent, banal prose, often made absurdly PC For example, instead of “Son of Man” (Christ’s favorite title for himself), it translates “Human One”, which is not only bad English, but it totally misses the point of the title, and turns it from a profound theological statement into an inane tautology.
But I agree with you about the Tyndale/KJV translation tradition being the baseline.
I will always prefer translations in that family, from Tyndale’s original text, to Coverdale, Geneva, the Great Bible, Bishop’s Bible, KJV, the Revised Version, the American Standard Version, Revised Standard, New American Standard, New Revised Standard, English Standard, over any other.
Indeed, ever since Tyndale, it has not really been possible to translate the Bible into English from scratch; you either follow Tyndale, or you don’t, and every change to Tyndale is essentially a response or rebuttal to Tyndale.
I’m not a fan of the CEB either for much the same reason.
It’s the Revised English Bible (REB) that I read. It updates the New English Bible, neither of which have anything to do with the CEB.
Chris, thanks for sharing. What an awsome coincidence that you checked the website right after wondering if the imprimatur was announced. In case you didn’t know, all NCB Bibles are reference editions. The footnotes and references come standard, similar to the NABRE, so they are basically study Bibles without the title.
Almost make you wonder how those two verses will read in the new NABRE.
I heard back from Word on Fire today and they will continue with the NRSV-CE for the remainder of the volumes. When asked what translation they will use for future printings after that, I was told they are not sure yet. I think I will hold off getting the Old Testament volumes until future printings in case they switch translations.
Better not just switch translations. I only have 2 more volumes to go.
Not everyone likes the NRSVUE Bible…
https://www.complicitclergy.com/2025/09/30/usccb-approves-gay-washed-bible/
Yep, not everyone likes it, and it’s fair game to criticize its translation choices. But that article takes things a step too far into outright falsehood with the following statement in large font at the top of the page: “The NRSVue now becomes the first major modern English committee translation of the Bible to eliminate any reference to homosexual practice.”
That is simply not true. Romans 1:26-27 clearly refers to homosexual practice in the NRSVue and makes no attempt to obfuscate the issue. The same is true of Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13. Furthermore, the NRSVue is not new in adopting a vague or broad wording for 1 Cor 6:9. The 1971 RSV translates the two underlying Greek words with the term “sexual perverts” rather than specifying homosexuality or clarifying the precise meaning of the two underlying Greek words.
Marc, as Peter rightly notes, it is clear from the context of my lengthy Jan. 5, 2022 post that I was referring specifically to 1 Cor 6:9 (and, by inference, to 1 Tim 1:10 where arsenokoitai again appears), not to Rom 1:26-27 and Lev 18:22 and 20:13, which owing to the number of words describing homosexual practice could not be obscured even by the translators of the updated edition.
As for the RSV translation, I immediately added the qualification about the RSV and REB translations: //(unless one counts the earlier RSV’s “sexual perverts,” picked up by the REB, as a paraphrase for both malakoi and arsenokoitai).//
I would argue that “sexual perverts” at the time that the RSV committee provided this translation, even granted its deficiency, would have been widely taken as a reference to those who engage in homosexual practice. By the time the NRSV first came out, that sense was no longer as clear as it once was, which is why the NRSV translators changed the translation to “sodomites” (still not the best translation but at least signaling clearly a reference to those who engage in homosexual practice).
The word arsen-o-koi-tai literally means “men [-tai] lying [koi-] with a male [arsen].” I gave numerous reasons in the post for why it should be translated this way, from both historical context and literary context. In addition, this translation is confirmed by the early rendering of the Greek word in the Old Latin and Latin Vulgate as masculorum concubitores (“men lying with males”). Similar renderings are given in the Syriac and Coptic versions.
In his articles, the author stated that the other passages condemning homosexual acts remained correctly translated. His point was that the two passages in question could mark the beginning of a process of eliminating the others. That’s how I understood him from the start.
I agee with Marc. It is false and defamatory to say the NRSVue has “gay-washed” the Bible and that it eliminated any reference to homosexual practice. I would also add in Jude 7 to the three verses Marc mentioned. I wonder if he would accuse the Douay Rheims of “gay-washing” the Bible for their choice of “the effeminate” and “liers with mankind” for 1 Cor 6:10.
I also think it was wrong to re-state his claim that the NRSVue translators don’t even know how they came up with their translation for 1 Cor 6 and 1 Tim 1. While he does mention the interview with the translation committee that Marc post a couple of months ago, and says the committee “changed its tune”, he doesn’t mention that they freely discuss who suggested the changes and that the whole committee agreed with the changes. That bit is necessary to clarify and correct his previous misleading statements. There is a longer article from Catholic Culture that is linked at the bottom of the article Scott posted that has this additional material.
The Catholic Culture column links to Robert A.J. Gagnon’s original post in which Gagnon stated that his claim that “The NRSVue now becomes the first major modern English committee translation of the Bible to eliminate any reference to homosexual practice” applied only to the committee responsible for translating arsenokoitai and not to other parts of the NRSVue. A clarification has been added to the column.
PJW,
The problem with what Mr. Gagnon said and the problem with the Catholic Culture article reposting it, even with clarification, is it’s not true. The NRSVue general editors assigned individual scholars to particular books to review and make suggestions for changes. Susan Hylen was the reviewer for 1 & 2 Timothy, and she was the one that suggested the change to “men who engage in illicit sex”. There was one decision making committee with John Kutsko, the director of the NRSV update, and the general editors. They discussed Susan Hylen’s suggestion and ultimately agreed on the suggested changes. There is no mysterious sub-committee responsible for the change. The same committee that agreed to what the NRSVue says in Romans 1:26-27, Leviticus 18:22, Leviticus 20:13, and Jude 7, is the one that agreed to what it says in 1 Cor 6:9-10 and 1 Timothy 1:10.
Cory, I am not sure what your point is in talking about how the decision to translate arsenokoitai as “men who engage in illicit sex” was made and claiming that what I said was “not true.” I never claimed that “the NRSVue translators don’t even know how they came up with their translation for 1 Cor 6 and 1 Tim 1.”
I am well aware that suggestions for translation changes made at lower levels have to be confirmed by the director and general editors. I was not aware that Susan Hylen suggested the change, but otherwise you have said nothing new to about the decision process. Everyone who had a hand in that change made the change not on the basis of the data but on the basis of LGBTQ dogma, for the evidence of the meaning “men lying with a male” is overwhelming (as I have shown).
Also: I did not say that “the NRSVue has ‘gay-washed’ the Bible and … eliminated any reference to homosexual practice.” I explicitly said in the title of my post that “the NRSV Updated Edition ‘Gaywashes’ 1 Corinthians 6:9.” That is not “defamatory” but accurate. You also say: //I wonder if he would accuse the Douay Rheims of “gay-washing” the Bible for their choice of “the effeminate” and “liers with mankind” for 1 Cor 6:10.// No, “liers with mankind” meant in its day men having sexual intercourse with males. It is a misleading translation to our modern ears but I can’t fault the Douay Rheims translation for speaking in their contemporary parlance.
As I noted to Marc, the statement in my post that “the NRSVue now becomes the first major modern English committee translation of the Bible to eliminate any reference to homosexual practice” in context clearly referred not to the whole Bible but specifically to 1 Cor 6:9. I was not claiming that there were no other negative statements about homosexual practice left in the NRSVue, which would be a manifestly untenable claim. I have now revised my post to add “in 1 Cor 6:9,” to avoid any future misunderstanding (or misrepresentation) of my statement.
Robert, my comment here is a reply to PJW’s comment just above mine. What I was saying is not true was both the statement “The NRSVue now becomes the first major modern English committee translation of the Bible to eliminate any reference to homosexual practice” and PJW’s clarification that the quote “applied only to the committee responsible for translating arsenokoitai and not to other parts of the NRSVue.” You have now amended your statement to include “…in 1 Cor 6:9”, but what I was calling “not true” was your statement before you amended it.
Even though it sounds like it was not your intent, what we have now is 3 Catholic articles (the Catholic Culture article “Bishops Approve “Gay-Washed” Bible”, the Catholic Answers article by the same author, “New Frontiers in Politically Correct Bible Translation!”, and the complicitclergy.com article “USCCB Approves “Gay-Washed” Bible) that use your quote in isolation and out of context to spread mis-information about the NRSVue and to bash the USCCB. They have also used your “gaywashed” line to refer to the translation as a whole. This comes straight out of Peter’s Catholic Answers article:
“According to Robert A.J. Gagnon, a Presbyterian scholar whose expertise on the Bible is respected across ecclesial divisions, the NRSVue “gaywashes” the Bible.”
Peter goes on to make the same claim later in the article when he says “Today, LGBT is the cause célèbre. Lo and behold, the National Council of Churches produces a gaywashed NRSVue.” His new article in Catholic Culture is titled “Bishops Approve “Gay-Washed” Bible”. The Complicit Clergy article takes up a similar title and has as its first statement “The NRSVue now becomes the first major modern English committee translation of the Bible to eliminate any reference to homosexual practice.”
These are the sorts of things that I think are defamatory. It is a sad situation that I am hoping can find some rectification.
For ease of reference for anyone reading the comments, here is a longer quote from Gagnon’s original Facebook post (
link to the post here
):
“The NRSVue now becomes the first major modern English committee translation of the Bible to eliminate any reference to homosexual practice (unless one counts the earlier RSV’s “sexual perverts,” picked up by the REB, as a paraphrase for both malakoi and arsenokoitai).
[Note that my criticisms apply only to those scholars who had a hand in the translation of 1 Cor 6:9; many other scholars, good scholars, were involved in the project of updating the NRSV, to whom my criticisms do not apply.]”
I would agree with PJW that the bracketed clarification in Gagnon’s original post limits his comments to 1 Cor 6:9, rather than the NRSVue translation as a whole. Unfortunately, Gagnon phrased the main statement with broad language that sounds like it applies to the NRSVue as a whole, and the Catholic Culture article quoted the main statement without any of the caveats.
Even considering the limited context of 1 Cor 6:9, I think Gagnon’s parenthetical acknowledgement that both the RSV and the REB use the term “sexual perverts” to translate the two underlying Greek words is already proof that the NRSVue is simply not “the first major modern English committee translation of the Bible to eliminate any reference to homosexual practice.”
Marc, thank you for noting the context of my remark. I have now added “in 1 Cor 6:9” to that sentence in the post so as to avoid future misrepresentation or misunderstanding of my remark.
You also rightly note that I added the qualification, “unless one counts the earlier RSV’s ‘sexual perverts,’ picked up by the REB.” I would argue that “sexual perverts” at the time that the RSV committee provided this translation, even granted its deficiency, would have been widely taken as a reference to those who engage in homosexual practice. By the time the NRSV first came out, that sense was no longer as clear as it once was, which is why the NRSV translators changed the translation to “sodomites” (still not the best translation but at least signaling clearly a reference to those who engage in homosexual practice).
Thank you for stopping by the blog, Robert! I appreciate you being here.
I take your point about the connotation of “sexual perverts” in the mid 20th century, but to me the crucial point is that both the RSV and the REB were revisions of prior translations which included explicit mention of homosexual practice in their translations of 1 Cor 6:9.
The 1946 RSV New Testament used the single word “homosexuals” to translate the two words “malakoi” and “arsenokoitai”
This was revised in the second edition of the RSV New Testament (published in 1971) to “sexual perverts” — a broader term.
The 1961 New English Bible (NEB) New Testament used the phrase “guilty of…homosexual perversion” to translate “malakoi” and “arsenokoitai”
The 1989 Revised English Bible revised the NEB’s language to “sexual perverts”
Both of these examples seem similar to the translation choice in the NRSVue. They move from a specific reference to homosexual practice to a less specific term. As such, I don’t see why the RSV and the REB should not count as examples of a similar pattern, and I think it is incorrect to say that the NRSVue is the first example of this.
My main frustration here is with vilification of the NRSVue as a whole. I think it’s perfectly fair game to criticize its translation choice in 1 Cor 6:9 and offer supporting evidence, as your Facebook post does. Unfortunately, the way your original statement was worded was picked up by other outlets and made it sound like the NRSVue as a whole was a singularly sinister translation which has gone farther than any other modern translation to expunge prohibitions of homosexual practice from all of Scripture.
I think this video from “Ward on Words” is about as evenhanded a criticism of the NRSVue’s translation of arsenokoitai as one is likely to find. Like Dr. Gagnon (and subsequent articles based on Gagnon), Ward calls the NRSVue “the first major English Bible to suddenly find arsenkoitai impossible to translate.” He explains why. He says that the rest of the NRSVue does not do that, only those two verses. But he does not think it was an accident.
About that. Progressives are very good at incrementalism. The RSV/NRSV seems to get an update about every thirty years. Given the trajectory, it would not be a surprise if they water down more verses on this topic in another thirty years.
It’s striking, too, that very few here are arguing that the NRSVue translated that word correctly and that the USCCB was right to approve it. The argument is over Gagnon’s wording and the articles that used that wording. The strange premise that the Bible makes distinctions between different kinds of same-sex relationships, now lent credence by a Bible with an imprimatur, goes largely unaddressed.
Here’s that video:
https://youtu.be/CJOw_Po_UIA?si=1V_SscNo0N0EKaVe
Thanks for sharing that video from Mark Ward, PJW. I watched parts of it before, but I appreciated watching it again. I sympathize with almost everything he said in the video until he got to the last sentence when he concludes that a bible translation “freak-out” is warranted for the NRSVue, due to its translations of 1 Cor 6:9 and 1 Tim 1:10. I vehemently disagree if a “freak-out” entails false statements, taken out of context, and fomenting outrage against the USCCB and the US bishops.
For what it’s worth (I’m an amateur, so it shouldn’t be worth very much), I find Gagnon and Ward’s arguments persuasive regarding the meaning of “arsenokoitai.” I was not happy with the NRSVue’s original decision to translate it “men who engage in illicit sex” with a footnote that simply said “Meaning of Gk uncertain.” I agree with Ward that this felt like a punt. The revised footnote listed in the NRSVue errata solves that issue for me. It acknowledges that there is scholarly debate over the exact connotation of “arsenokoitai” while offering a more literal translation of its meaning in the footnote (just like the NRSV does in other places).
When you criticize the NRSVue for lending credence to “the strange premise that the Bible makes distinctions between different kinds of same-sex relationships,” I’m a bit puzzled. To me, the text of the NRSVue is quite restrained in lending credence to that view. I agree that some individual scholars hold that view and argue that Paul was only trying to condemn sexual exploitation rather than all same-sex actions (I find that view unconvincing, for what it’s worth). But if the NRSVue translators wanted to favor that view, their word choice does a poor job of it. They would have been much better off to use a specific word like “pederasts” or “men who rape men” in order to limit the meaning, rather than a vague phrase that is open to multiple interpretations. Their choice is certainly influenced by the disagreement among scholars on this point, but when seen from that perspective, it does an admirable job of dealing with the scholarly debate. I wish it was less vague, but the revised footnote is acceptable to me.
Now that I’ve addressed my personal view of the translation, let me take up the question about whether the USCCB was right to grant an imprimatur to the NRSVue, in light of its translation of 1 Cor 6:9 and 1 Tim 1:10. In my opinion, it was entirely right. The imprimatur is not a judgment about whether a translation perfectly expresses the full meaning of the original Greek or Hebrew. If it was, no translation would ever be granted an imprimatur. Rather, it is merely a judgment that there is nothing in the text which is contrary to faith or morals. There is certainly nothing contrary to faith or morals in saying that men who engage in illicit sex will not inherit the kingdom of God. If the question arises, “but what is illicit sex?”, a Catholic reading the NRSVue should consult the Church’s moral teaching and the rest of Paul’s teaching (including Romans 1:26-27). But on its face, the statement as translated is entirely in accord with Catholic teaching.
I’d like to expand a bit on my point above. To reiterate: the NRSVue does not lend undue credence to a moral difference between different types of same-sex relationships. In my view, translations that are overly specific in their rendering of malakoi and arsenokoitai pose a greater potential for that interpretation than vague translations like “men who engage in illicit sex.” Consider the NABRE’s translation of 1 Cor 6:9 and the accompanying footnote:
“Do you not know that the unjust will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers nor boy prostitutes nor sodomites…” (1 Cor 6:9 NABRE)
The NABRE’s footnote reads as follows: “The Greek word translated as boy prostitutes may refer to catamites, i.e., boys or young men who were kept for purposes of prostitution, a practice not uncommon in the Greco-Roman world. In Greek mythology this was the function of Ganymede, the “cupbearer of the gods,” whose Latin name was Catamitus. The term translated sodomites refers to adult males who indulged in homosexual practices with such boys. See similar condemnations of such practices in Rom 1:26–27; 1 Tm 1:10.”
As such, the NABRE’s translation (“sodomites”) broadly connotes same-sex activity, but the footnote confines the meaning to the context of adult men and boy prostitutes. It further applies this limited cultural context to Paul’s teaching in Romans 1:26-27 and 1 Timothy 1:10. To me, this footnote opens the door far more to the argument that Paul is only condemning exploitative same-sex activity, compared to the NRSVue’s “men who engage in illicit sex.”
What constitutes illicit sex in Paul’s context? The type of same sex activity mentioned in the NABRE footnote was not necessarily illicit in pagan society. But in Paul’s context as a Jew trained in the law, he would have considered all same-sex intercourse between men illicit under the prohibitions in the law (and likely also in his understanding of what we would now call the natural law). Furthermore, the phrase “men who engage in illicit sex” is broader than “sodomites” or especially the explanation given in the NABRE footnote. The NRSVue would encompass a wider variety of sins than either of those other examples. If the concern is that the NRSVue has limited the scope of sin which can exclude a person from the kingdom of God, I simply do not think it has. In fact, it has broadened the scope compared to the NABRE and compared to the original NRSV.
In case anyone reacts to the above with a condemnation of the NABRE, let me also cite the New Catholic Bible, which has a reputation for being more traditional in its translation and commentary than the NABRE:
“Are you not aware that wrongdoers will never inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! Fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, sodomites…” (1 Cor 6:9 NCB)
The NCB’s footnote to this verse points the reader to the footnote for 1 Tim 1:10. After turning to that note, one can read the following: “Sodomites: adult males who have relations with boy prostitutes. The latter are also known as catamites after the Latin name (Catamitus) of Ganymede, the cupbearer of the gods in Greek mythology. See also Rom 1:26f and 1 Cor 6:9.” This note applies the same limited cultural context to the meaning of the term “sodomites” as the NABRE’s footnote, and it similarly cites Romans 1:26-27 and 1 Cor 6:9 as falling under the same cultural context.
The NRSVue’s translation does not attempt to limit the scope of Paul’s language to a narrower context proposed by scholars (as valid as that context may be for understanding the culture Paul was addressing). It leaves the question open. The “freak-out” over the translation focuses on the narrow fact that the words “illicit sex” no longer have an explicit same-sex connotation, but if the overriding concern is failure to condemn the sins Paul condemned, it seems clear that the NRSVue condemns a wider range of sins than the footnotes in the NABRE and the NCB, which limit the context to the point where many modern same-sex relationships do not seem relevant to what Paul was addressing. I personally think the NRSVue’s language for translating arsenokoitai is too broad, but my point is that I don’t think the NRSVue is singularly pernicious in this respect. If the NABRE and NCB received imprimaturs, there is no reason why the NRSVue should not.
For what it’s worth (not much, methinks), I think the DR is far and away the best translation of that passage, at least as far as the plain meaning of the Greek is concerned (which is ironic, given that it’s a Latin translation).
The word “homosexual” was coined in the 1890s by psychoanalysts who were classifying homosexuality as a mental disorder.
The RSV NT in 1946 was the first Bible translation to use the word. This was the subject of a recent documentary which claims that before 1946, homosexuality was never considered sinful and that the idea was introduced in 1946, obvious nonsense of course.
The Douay Rheims could not possibly have used the word because it did not exist. However, even to our own day, homosexual men have a reputation for being “effeminate”, so “effeminate men” was clearly intended to mean homosexuals.
Yeah, DR was the wrong choice there. I should have gone with Knox.
What does Knox say? Note that the English language has an astonishing number of euphemisms for homosexuality, and at the time conservatives criticized the 1946 RSV NT for unnecessary vulgarity in using the word.
He went with “effeminate” and “sinners against nature” in 1 Cor 6:10. While these terms would encompass homosexual practice, they aren’t exclusive to it. You could have an effeminate man that others might label homosexual, and indeed he may have same sex attraction, but that doesn’t mean he’s engaging in homosexual activity. He may well be single and chaste. Regarding “sinners against nature”, that could include bestiality, and maybe even incest and masturbation.
Pope Leo gives advice to Catholic media: Look at the world the way Christ does
To call itself “Catholic,” a magazine must try to look at the world the way Christ does and give witness to his saving love and power, Pope Leo XIV said….
https://www.americamagazine.org/news/2025/09/25/pope-leo-catholic-media/
Not quite the vibe I’m getting from “Complicit Clergy.”
Barf.
What, oh what, did those first Christians ever do?
What hope could they possibly have, with no New Testament to follow, and only the Living Christ and the teaching Church to guide their love?
Thank God we’ve come so far.
On the bright side, we now know the Augustine Institute’s CSV translation is still underway, so those who vehemently dislike the NRSVue-CE have another future translation to look forward to, one that certainly won’t follow the NRSVue in those two verses. I hope we can get a full CSV New Testament in the coming years, at least.
It’s a progressive, LGBTQ+ translation. Hence, the acronym soup of “NRSVue-CE”, the unnecessary termination of the faithful NRSV, and the committee’s distortions around its own decisions.
It’s odd to see people defending this translation, when the same people were previously aghast at the anti-Catholicism of its study notes. Denial of obvious truths breeds an everlasting surprise, or as the Russians would say, “polezniye duraki”.
I haven’t seen anyone on this blog approve or celebrate the translation changes in 1 Cor 6:9 and 1 Tim 1:10. There is nothing strange to me about being critical of the SBL Study Bible sidebars, which are unrelated to the NCC, Frindship Press, and the NRSVue translation committee, and at the same time defending the NRSVue translation against untrue attacks that seem at this point to be deliberately false and misleading. It doesn’t help our cause in defending the Church’s teachings on marriage and sexuality when people react so uncharitably. We should have a measured and fair response to NRSVue’s translation choices and the USCCB’s granting of an imprimatur. I can say that and at the same time be unhappy with the translation changes in 1Cor 6:9 and 1 Tim 1:1, and frustrated there weren’t changes in the Catholic Edition. Maybe we should all seek to understand rather than jump to such extreme conclusions
Apparently one verse in the NRSVue, which always made me chuckle, is as yet unchanged even after the recent NRSVue corrections.
After listing several things that one should cultivate in one’s life, 2 Pet 1:9 in the NRSV reads:
“For anyone who lacks these things is short-sighted and blind, and is forgetful of the cleansing of past sins.”
It’s obvious that the context demands that the phrase “short-sighted and blind” be taken metaphorically, both in Greek and in English.
But this must not have been so clear to the NRSVue translators of the verse:
“For anyone who lacks these things is blind, suffering from eye disease, forgetful of the cleansing of past sins.”
I never realized that failure to cultivate good character traits could result in a trip to the ophthalmologist.
Footnotes and the delusional fantasies and desires of the woke mind virus are not the divinely inspired and inerrant word of God affirmed by the Holy Spirit.
Galatians 1:8
2 Corinthians 6:17
For what it’s worth, an imprimatur is not infallible. The permission from a bishop that a publication may be printed can be withdrawn. I believe the 1991 translation of the NAB psalter was given an imprimatur, but the Vatican insisted it be withdrawn because the inclusive language was so reckless that Messianic prophecy was obscured. Pope St. John Paul II had much to say about this problem.
I’m very hesitant to trust our modern translators. It’s naive to believe they are not affected in their translating by ideological pressures, especially those applied by the more militant perverse types. Fr. John Hardon once stated the obvious, that translators are directly affected in their choices of words by their own personal beliefs. How we get beyond this problem is a mystery. But it certainly helps to have a few older translations on hand to compare verses.
It’s hard to imagine a more infuriating evil than the obscuring of sin in the Word of God.
Just to clarify: the imprimatur for the 1991 NAB Psalms was never revoked. It is still listed on the USCCB’s list of approved Bible translations:
https://www.usccb.org/offices/new-american-bible/approved-translations-bible
The Congregation for Divine Worship denied permission to use the 1991 NAB Psalms for liturgical use in 1994.
You might be thinking of the 1995 ICEL translation of the Psalter. It made widespread use of inclusive language (including eliminating most male pronouns for God), and the US bishops revoked their imprimatur for it at the request of Cardinal Ratzinger. Here is an archived article by John Allen Jr. summarizing what happened:
https://natcath.org/NCR_Online/archives2/1998c/082898/082898g.htm
And here is the statement by Bishop Anthony Pilla, president of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops, on the revocation of the imprimatur for the 1995 ICEL Psalter:
https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=654
Yes. Thank you. You’re correct. I got the year wrong.
Anybody updates, yet, on when Catholic editions will be available for purchase? Excited to buy one when it comes out!